1st July 23:04
Wald on spontaneous generation (energy faith beliefs science space)
Charles & Mambo, what do you think of the Big Bang theory-- do
you think the universe began to exist in the Big Bang? If so,
perhaps you might be interested in reading an argument that
appeals to logic, rationality, and reason in proposing that the
universe had a beginner(s) causing the universe to begin to exist
in the Big Bang:
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
You state that you "rely on science to provide the best possible
answers, theories and explanations on
how something happened." Could you point me to a peer-reviewed
journal paper describing _how_ life could have come from non-life
in the distant past apart from the input of intelligence?
I fail to see the relevance of
a) the fact that different lifeforms of different levels of
complexity are seen in the fossil record, with comparatively
simple organisms appearing about 4 billion years ago, and more
complex reptiles and mammals and humans appearing much later,
b) the validity or erroneousness of the claim that spontaneous
generation can occur.
I will grant that intelligent humans have created amino acids in
their intelligently-designed laboratories using
intelligently-designed lab equipment, which utilizes
intelligently-designed traps to collect the amino acids produced
and protect the amino acids from the same energy sources that
produced them in the first place. Please explain, if you would,
how this intelligence-laden state of affairs could logically,
rationally, and reasonably be described as [C&M]"conditions
simulating the early Earth."
Behe's cake ****ogy
Besides amino acids, life as we know it needs amino acids in the
form of proteins, as well as DNA and RNA.
_How_ could RNA and DNA and amino acids in the form of proteins
have arisen on the early earth (or on another planet, or in outer
_How_ could have RNA and DNA and proteins have combined in such a
fashion as to give rise to life?
One hypothesis is that one or more intelligent entities was/were
responsible for designing/creating the first lifeforms. What, if
anything, could be done to make this hypothesis a
[C&M]"scientifically formulated hypothesis"?
Suppose a team of intelligent scientists designed/created a
lifeform from scratch.
In your view, would this feat/achievement provide support for the
hypothesis that intelligence was responsible for the first
Would this achievement provide support for the hypothesis that
intelligence was _not_ responsible for the first lifeform?
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 06:46:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: Charles & Mambo <Duckman@get.lost>
Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.atheism, sci.skeptic, talk.atheism
Subject: Re: Quote Mine Project - Part II
"My atheism" is not the basis for anything. It is the other way around - I
am an atheist because I rely strictly on reason, rationality and logic,
which is just the opposite of faith, superstition and religious
I hold no "beliefs" about life "coming" from anything, and instead rely on
science to provide the best possible answers, theories and explanations on
how something happened. Since one can observe fossils nicely layered in
different radiometrically dated strata, starting from simple multi-celled
organisms 4 billion years ago to complex mammals and reptiles much later,
and also knowing that amino-acids were successfully replicated in the lab
conditions simulating the early Earth, there is no possible reason not to
conclude that life developed from "non-life", if you wish.
Considering the preponderance of available evidence and considering the
absence of any other scientifically formulated hypothesis, it is only
reasonable to assume this flow of events.
Now, if you have any evidence to offer as far as deities or aliens
"creating" life, we'd all like to see it. Of course, if this will mean the
standard creationist crap, then spare us. We heard it all and were utterly